Y'all come back now, ya hear?
Let us now hear from the Creationists
- Thread starter Thunderdog
- Start date
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050303/ap_on_sc/hobbit_brain_2
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...03/sc_afp/usindonesiascience_050303225431&e=2
Scientists working with powerful imaging computers say the spectacular "Hobbit" fossil recently discovered in Indonesia had distinctive brain features that could justify its classification as a separate â and tiny â human ancestor.
They compared that model with the brains of chimps, a female Homo erectus, a contemporary woman, a pygmy and a European specimen of a person with a small-brain syndrome known as microcephaly.
Scientists say its brain shape is most closely associated with that of Homo erectus. However, it also reflects some features of modern humans, including:
_A fissure near the back of the brain known as the lunate sulcus, similarly found in the modern human brain. "I almost fell over seeing this feature in something so small," Falk said.
_A swollen temporal lobe, the mid-brain area between the ears where hearing, memory, image identification and emotions are processed.
_A part of the frontal lobe near the eyes that is thought to be involved in planning and initiative-taking.
Such advanced brain features were especially surprising because the rest of the skeleton has more primitive traits like coarse teeth and an apelike pelvis similar to human ancestors that emerged in Africa some 4 million years ago.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...03/sc_afp/usindonesiascience_050303225431&e=2
Scientists working with powerful imaging computers say the spectacular "Hobbit" fossil recently discovered in Indonesia had distinctive brain features that could justify its classification as a separate â and tiny â human ancestor.
They compared that model with the brains of chimps, a female Homo erectus, a contemporary woman, a pygmy and a European specimen of a person with a small-brain syndrome known as microcephaly.
Scientists say its brain shape is most closely associated with that of Homo erectus. However, it also reflects some features of modern humans, including:
_A fissure near the back of the brain known as the lunate sulcus, similarly found in the modern human brain. "I almost fell over seeing this feature in something so small," Falk said.
_A swollen temporal lobe, the mid-brain area between the ears where hearing, memory, image identification and emotions are processed.
_A part of the frontal lobe near the eyes that is thought to be involved in planning and initiative-taking.
Such advanced brain features were especially surprising because the rest of the skeleton has more primitive traits like coarse teeth and an apelike pelvis similar to human ancestors that emerged in Africa some 4 million years ago.
The question of origins is largely a matter of historyânot the domain of applied science. Contrary to the unilateral denials of many evolutionists, oneâs worldview does indeed play heavily on oneâs interpretation of scientific data, a phenomenon that is magnified in matters concerning origins, where neither repeatability, nor observation, nor measurementâthe three immutable elements of the scientific methodâmay be employed. Many proponents of evolutionism nevertheless persist in claiming exclusive âscientificâ status for their popularized beliefs, while curtly dismissing (if not angrily deriding) all doubters, and spurning Darwinâs advice.
________________________________________
________________________________________
I would be intellectually dishonest not to acknowledge competing ideas, now wouldn't I?
I read the debates between Spetner and Max, and while there are some moments that are difficult to follow, there are a few things which I do not swallow well at all.
Spetner's comments are all theoretical in nature -- he merely tears at the fabric of evolution rather than sewing a new cloth. If for example, Einstein's theories were merely equations on a blackboard without any real world measurements, then, as far as I am concerned that is all they are -- equations, that may or may not represent any real world scenario. But, of course, Einstein's equations have been used to help produce some rather spectacularly explosive results, and, so it is difficult to dismiss them.
Spetner's argument is basically, an extremely sophisticated versions of the "1,000 monkeys banging on keyboards for a billion years will never create the works of Shakespeare" argument. This sounds extremely persuasive at first blush, however, from the evolutionary viewpoint, William Shakespeare was, himself, the product of evolution, and thus his writings, are of an enormous magnitude greater in complexity than all of the biological processes that preceded him, because those works and Shakespeare himself, rest, literally, on the existence of the evolutionary process that created the opportunity for Shakespeare to exist and to write his works.
So, now it's not 1,000 monkeys banging on typewriters, it's more likely 1 X 10^1,000,000 monkeys. Thus, evolutionary processes are trivial when compared to Shakespeare's writing (or Bach, Mozart, The Rolling Stones, Eminem, Larry Flint, and yes, even ZZZzzzzzzz, etc.).
My point is, that if I were hired to prove creationism, I would abandon all attempts to create logical theoretical arguments about what's wrong with evolution. Instead, I would be busy trying to repeat the experiments hailed by evolutionary proponents in an effort to falsify their results.
That is what doing science is about -- real experiments, not mental experiments. The same is true in the legal field. No court will entertain a purely hypothetical question. There must be a genuine justiciable controversy between adverse parties. Otherwise, the court will declare the case moot, and dismiss.
In the case of this thread, I show you an experiment, that if you accept its outcome, demonstrates evolution (despite nickelscalper's protestations to the contrary). I admit, the experiment could be the result of fraud or mistake, but it's not my job to challenge the findings and conclusions. That job is the creationist's.
I would welcome a finding that the experiment cannot be repeated. I also would welcome a finding that the experiment can be repeated. I can accept the outcome either way.
The real question is -- can you?
If you can, then you should tell your minister/priest/pastor, etc. to stop funding people like Spetner who categorically refuse to conduct actual experiments and demand that church funding go to people who will actually do the science necessary to defeat the evolutionary doctrine.
If you don't, then your opponent, who is well funded and determined, will beat you, just the way that a well funded opponent in a courtroom can defeat a poorly funded one.
You must pick your battles carefully and fight to win, not to place or show. Because, whether you like it or not, in the real world, to the winner goes the spoils.
Which, by the way, is a very compelling proof of evolution in action.
I would be intellectually dishonest not to acknowledge competing ideas, now wouldn't I?
Competing ideas? Where is there a competition to discover the truth?
Aren't we really all on the same side in the search for truth?
I read the debates between Spetner and Max, and while there are some moments that are difficult to follow, there are a few things which I do not swallow well at all.
Okay.
Spetner's comments are all theoretical in nature -- he merely tears at the fabric of evolution rather than sewing a new cloth. If for example, Einstein's theories were merely equations on a blackboard without any real world measurements, then, as far as I am concerned that is all they are -- equations, that may or may not represent any real world scenario. But, of course, Einstein's equations have been used to help produce some rather spectacularly explosive results, and, so it is difficult to dismiss them.
A real scientists would relish having someone pick apart his theory, tear at the fabric of it to expose weakness in the theory. Why wouldn't he want the right theory, the one that withstands all examination?
Assuming of course, that a real scientist is not attached to his theory, but attached to discovery of truth.
If there is weakness in a theory, it is the duty and obligation of a real scientist to exploit that weakness.
It is a lazy science and a lazy scientist that doesn't perpetually employ the skepticism that is the cornerstone of good hard science.
Spetner's argument is basically, an extremely sophisticated versions of the "1,000 monkeys banging on keyboards for a billion years will never create the works of Shakespeare" argument. This sounds extremely persuasive at first blush, however, from the evolutionary viewpoint, William Shakespeare was, himself, the product of evolution, and thus his writings, are of an enormous magnitude greater in complexity than all of the biological processes that preceded him, because those works and Shakespeare himself, rest, literally, on the existence of the evolutionary process that created the opportunity for Shakespeare to exist and to write his works.
It is a common sense argument, that appeals to our own common sense.
The question comes down to randomness or design, and neither can be proved actually, as it simply is not known that random is not in fact part of a larger plan.
So, now it's not 1,000 monkeys banging on typewriters, it's more likely 1 X 10^1,000,000 monkeys. Thus, evolutionary processes are trivial when compared to Shakespeare's writing (or Bach, Mozart, The Rolling Stones, Eminem, Larry Flint, and yes, even ZZZzzzzzzz, etc.).
Fine company to keep.
My point is, that if I were hired to prove creationism, I would abandon all attempts to create logical theoretical arguments about what's wrong with evolution. Instead, I would be busy trying to repeat the experiments hailed by evolutionary proponents in an effort to falsify their results.
Creationism cannot be proved, nor can it be disproved. It can only be offered as a reasonable explanation for the origin of our natural universe.
Same with evolutionary theory of the origin of man.
That is what doing science is about -- real experiments, not mental experiments. The same is true in the legal field. No court will entertain a purely hypothetical question. There must be a genuine justiciable controversy between adverse parties. Otherwise, the court will declare the case moot, and dismiss.
Real experiments, yes.
Speculative conclusions taken as actual facts? No.
In the case of this thread, I show you an experiment, that if you accept its outcome, demonstrates evolution (despite nickelscalper's protestations to the contrary). I admit, the experiment could be the result of fraud or mistake, but it's not my job to challenge the findings and conclusions. That job is the creationist's.
The experiment would need to be replicated multiple times to have any weight.
Anyone knows that something true will always be true, that's why studies are done continually to verify it was not just a fluke.
I would welcome a finding that the experiment cannot be repeated. I also would welcome a finding that the experiment can be repeated. I can accept the outcome either way.
Until the experiment can be repeated, how can you say that this experiment has any statistical validity?
The real question is -- can you?
Do you understand that in science, if someone asserts something to be true, that the responsibility is on that person to prove it to be true?
Isn't that the one of the great aspects of science? Not blind faith, but verifiable results that can be repeated over and over again. The more some theory is tested, and the more the results confirm the hypothesis, the closer we get to actual fact.
Am I wrong here?
If you can, then you should tell your minister/priest/pastor, etc. to stop funding people like Spetner who categorically refuse to conduct actual experiments and demand that church funding go to people who will actually do the science necessary to defeat the evolutionary doctrine.
Why should experiments be conducted to disprove one experiment?
One experiment is hardly enough to come to any statistical conclusions.
If you don't, then your opponent, who is well funded and determined, will beat you, just the way that a well funded opponent in a courtroom can defeat a poorly funded one.
So this again from your perspective is about a battle, not a search for the truth.
You must pick your battles carefully and fight to win, not to place or show. Because, whether you like it or not, in the real world, to the winner goes the spoils.
There are no spoils of truth, just the knowledge of truth itself. There are no greater spoils than truth.
Winning with a lie is really winning?
Which, by the way, is a very compelling proof of evolution in action.
It is proof of a jungle mentality that would win at any cost, not any evolved mindset that seeks higher values like truth.
The discussion seems to be turning toward legal decisions rather than scientific ones. I don't think that will get us closer to a final resolution. With that said I don't believe, given the arguments on both sides, and beyond a reasonable doubt, that any jury would say that the posted experiment establishes evolution as a fact, or proves that man came from monkeys, or that it all came from some type of soup struck by lightning.
I see no need to spend the tremendous amounts necessary to refute these studies in question when their history is to fall on their own weight. I just saw a corporation spend $6 million to refute just such a study that turned out to be totally bogus and dishonest. Another local scientific group spent $200,000 to blow big holes in a widely held and acclaimed study. The first victory will result in the delisting of an endangered species that relied on bogus scientific studies and dishonest attornies to get it listed in the first place. The second will in time change the way water temperature standards are set from the laughably bogus present procedure.
Time is on the side of truth and the evolutionary movement has had over 100 years to clinch the deal and has failed. The tide is turning.
I see no need to spend the tremendous amounts necessary to refute these studies in question when their history is to fall on their own weight. I just saw a corporation spend $6 million to refute just such a study that turned out to be totally bogus and dishonest. Another local scientific group spent $200,000 to blow big holes in a widely held and acclaimed study. The first victory will result in the delisting of an endangered species that relied on bogus scientific studies and dishonest attornies to get it listed in the first place. The second will in time change the way water temperature standards are set from the laughably bogus present procedure.
Time is on the side of truth and the evolutionary movement has had over 100 years to clinch the deal and has failed. The tide is turning.
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
Competing ideas? Where is there a competition to discover the truth?
Aren't we really all on the same side in the search for truth?
No, weâre not. The evolutionistâs truth and the creationistâs truth are two different things, because neither accepts what the other considers proof of the truth of evolution/creation.
A real scientists would relish having someone pick apart his theory, tear at the fabric of it to expose weakness in the theory. Why wouldn't he want the right theory, the one that withstands all examination?
Assuming of course, that a real scientist is not attached to his theory, but attached to discovery of truth.
If there is weakness in a theory, it is the duty and obligation of a real scientist to exploit that weakness.
It is a lazy science and a lazy scientist that doesn't perpetually employ the skepticism that is the cornerstone of good hard science.
You are implying that no evolutionist inquires into the difficulties of evolution. Thatâs a pretty broad paintbrush, unsupported by any facts. Evolutionary science is continuous and ongoing, whereas creationist science is nearly non-existent, except for a few theoretical thinkers.
It is a common sense argument, that appeals to our own common sense.
Common sense would refute General and Special Relativity, quantum physics and restore Newtonian Physics. Common sense saw the world as flat. Common sense put the Earth at the center of the Universe. Common sense would hold that the Martingale technique of doubling oneâs bet after a loss guarantees a win in a negative expectation game. Common sense says that a metal hull will sink. Common sense tells a person with a high fever to bundle up instead of taking a cold shower. Common sense says that if you buy when the price rises above the moving average and sell when the price falls below, that you will make money.
Common sense is not science, and common sense is frequently VERY wrong.
The question comes down to randomness or design, and neither can be proved actually, as it simply is not known that random is not in fact part of a larger plan.
If we accept your premise that nothing can be proved, then why bother doing any science at all? The creationist advocates, that where nothing is found, design should be implied. The evolutionist advocates, that where nothing is found, nothing is found. I prefer the latter concept. I canât defend a client from a criminal charge by telling the jury that âGod did it!â Iâd be disbarred.
Creationism cannot be proved, nor can it be disproved. It can only be offered as a reasonable explanation for the origin of our natural universe.
Same with evolutionary theory of the origin of man.
I agree â creationism cannot be proved. I disagree that evolutionary theory cannot be proved. You are setting your own personal standard of proof for what is required to falsify evolution, and that standard is not shared by the majority of the scientific community, therefore your standard of proof is incorrect, until such time as you are able to convince the scientific community otherwise.
The experiment would need to be replicated multiple times to have any weight.
Until the experiment can be repeated, how can you say that this experiment has any statistical validity?
What is the number of repeated trials that will satisfy your personal standard of proof? Many other experiments of a similar kind have been performed and have produced similar results. Unless they are ALL frauds or mistakes, then the statistics that they produce the same findings is proof that the theory is correct.
I would love it if the worm experiment were repeated a few more times. Two more times would convince me completely. But, that is MY personal standard of proof. However, the scientific community has published the results, and now it falls to the experimentâs detractors to repeat the experiment and find that it fails.
You consistently turn the burden of proof on its head. You think that itâs the original experimenterâs duty to repeat a test until it satisfies all possible detractors. This is absurd. The scientist publishes, and the detractor tries to repeat. If the detractor refuses to repeat, the original findings stand.
The burden of falsifying the experiment is on the creationist, and to suggest otherwise, is sophistry.
Do you understand that in science, if someone asserts something to be true, that the responsibility is on that person to prove it to be true?
Isn't that the one of the great aspects of science? Not blind faith, but verifiable results that can be repeated over and over again. The more some theory is tested, and the more the results confirm the hypothesis, the closer we get to actual fact.
Am I wrong here?
My argument immediately above explains why your position is âivory towerâ thinking.
Why should experiments be conducted to disprove one experiment?
One experiment is hardly enough to come to any statistical conclusions.
As previously stated, there are many such examples of speciation. I simply chose one that I thought gave a clear demonstration of the evolutionary process. If I donât satisfy your burden of proof, then thatâs fine, because I donât need to. The scientific community has allowed the offered experiment to be published, and it has not been refuted as false, therefore it stands as acceptable proof of speciation, until such time as some detractor demonstrates that it is a fraud or mistake.
So this again from your perspective is about a battle, not a search for the truth.
Objection: The question is argumentative. You are implying that the search for truth must, by definition, not be a battle. I suggest that the search for truth is always a battle, and the proof is that civilization has universally developed court systems to resolve such battles without resorting to violent physical force.
There are no spoils of truth, just the knowledge of truth itself. There are no greater spoils than truth.
The two statements above contradict each other. First you say that there are no spoils of truth -- then you say that there is no greater spoil than truth.
Winning with a lie is really winning?
It is only your opinion that evolution is a lie. The scientific community finds evolution to be true. If you want to prove that your position is the more correct, then perform real experiments to falsify those experiments that have been accepted by the scientific community. If you do not, then you lose.
It is proof of a jungle mentality that would win at any cost, not any evolved mindset that seeks higher values like truth.
Sounds like evolution to me, i.e., âNature, red in tooth and clawâ¦â â Darwin.
Competing ideas? Where is there a competition to discover the truth?
Aren't we really all on the same side in the search for truth?
No, weâre not. The evolutionistâs truth and the creationistâs truth are two different things, because neither accepts what the other considers proof of the truth of evolution/creation.
A real scientists would relish having someone pick apart his theory, tear at the fabric of it to expose weakness in the theory. Why wouldn't he want the right theory, the one that withstands all examination?
Assuming of course, that a real scientist is not attached to his theory, but attached to discovery of truth.
If there is weakness in a theory, it is the duty and obligation of a real scientist to exploit that weakness.
It is a lazy science and a lazy scientist that doesn't perpetually employ the skepticism that is the cornerstone of good hard science.
You are implying that no evolutionist inquires into the difficulties of evolution. Thatâs a pretty broad paintbrush, unsupported by any facts. Evolutionary science is continuous and ongoing, whereas creationist science is nearly non-existent, except for a few theoretical thinkers.
It is a common sense argument, that appeals to our own common sense.
Common sense would refute General and Special Relativity, quantum physics and restore Newtonian Physics. Common sense saw the world as flat. Common sense put the Earth at the center of the Universe. Common sense would hold that the Martingale technique of doubling oneâs bet after a loss guarantees a win in a negative expectation game. Common sense says that a metal hull will sink. Common sense tells a person with a high fever to bundle up instead of taking a cold shower. Common sense says that if you buy when the price rises above the moving average and sell when the price falls below, that you will make money.
Common sense is not science, and common sense is frequently VERY wrong.
The question comes down to randomness or design, and neither can be proved actually, as it simply is not known that random is not in fact part of a larger plan.
If we accept your premise that nothing can be proved, then why bother doing any science at all? The creationist advocates, that where nothing is found, design should be implied. The evolutionist advocates, that where nothing is found, nothing is found. I prefer the latter concept. I canât defend a client from a criminal charge by telling the jury that âGod did it!â Iâd be disbarred.
Creationism cannot be proved, nor can it be disproved. It can only be offered as a reasonable explanation for the origin of our natural universe.
Same with evolutionary theory of the origin of man.
I agree â creationism cannot be proved. I disagree that evolutionary theory cannot be proved. You are setting your own personal standard of proof for what is required to falsify evolution, and that standard is not shared by the majority of the scientific community, therefore your standard of proof is incorrect, until such time as you are able to convince the scientific community otherwise.
The experiment would need to be replicated multiple times to have any weight.
Until the experiment can be repeated, how can you say that this experiment has any statistical validity?
What is the number of repeated trials that will satisfy your personal standard of proof? Many other experiments of a similar kind have been performed and have produced similar results. Unless they are ALL frauds or mistakes, then the statistics that they produce the same findings is proof that the theory is correct.
I would love it if the worm experiment were repeated a few more times. Two more times would convince me completely. But, that is MY personal standard of proof. However, the scientific community has published the results, and now it falls to the experimentâs detractors to repeat the experiment and find that it fails.
You consistently turn the burden of proof on its head. You think that itâs the original experimenterâs duty to repeat a test until it satisfies all possible detractors. This is absurd. The scientist publishes, and the detractor tries to repeat. If the detractor refuses to repeat, the original findings stand.
The burden of falsifying the experiment is on the creationist, and to suggest otherwise, is sophistry.
Do you understand that in science, if someone asserts something to be true, that the responsibility is on that person to prove it to be true?
Isn't that the one of the great aspects of science? Not blind faith, but verifiable results that can be repeated over and over again. The more some theory is tested, and the more the results confirm the hypothesis, the closer we get to actual fact.
Am I wrong here?
My argument immediately above explains why your position is âivory towerâ thinking.
Why should experiments be conducted to disprove one experiment?
One experiment is hardly enough to come to any statistical conclusions.
As previously stated, there are many such examples of speciation. I simply chose one that I thought gave a clear demonstration of the evolutionary process. If I donât satisfy your burden of proof, then thatâs fine, because I donât need to. The scientific community has allowed the offered experiment to be published, and it has not been refuted as false, therefore it stands as acceptable proof of speciation, until such time as some detractor demonstrates that it is a fraud or mistake.
So this again from your perspective is about a battle, not a search for the truth.
Objection: The question is argumentative. You are implying that the search for truth must, by definition, not be a battle. I suggest that the search for truth is always a battle, and the proof is that civilization has universally developed court systems to resolve such battles without resorting to violent physical force.
There are no spoils of truth, just the knowledge of truth itself. There are no greater spoils than truth.
The two statements above contradict each other. First you say that there are no spoils of truth -- then you say that there is no greater spoil than truth.
Winning with a lie is really winning?
It is only your opinion that evolution is a lie. The scientific community finds evolution to be true. If you want to prove that your position is the more correct, then perform real experiments to falsify those experiments that have been accepted by the scientific community. If you do not, then you lose.
It is proof of a jungle mentality that would win at any cost, not any evolved mindset that seeks higher values like truth.
Sounds like evolution to me, i.e., âNature, red in tooth and clawâ¦â â Darwin.
Only 100 years? Then time is definitely on the side of evolution.
It took 4 billion years for your Intelligent Designer to work out how to put together the ignorant sickly human animal, that is so incapable of getting its thinking functions working properly, it can't decide which is the right God to believe in out of the thousands it has invented
An intelligent designer, which is supposed to have been around designing stuff for an eternity, has given a piss poor show in the time it's had, compared to the 100 years you mention.